JESUS AGAINST THE RICH- Jersey Flight

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions." Matthew 19: 16-22 KJV

I suspect this verse proves one thing: there are no Christians!

How often does Christ expose man's philanthropic phoniness?

I believe these verses provoke the question of authenticity. The more a man has the greater his responsibility. Why is it that people with nothing often give more than people with wealth?

Wealth does not make a man moral, but depending on what he does with his wealth, is more likely to prove that he is immoral.

A man who can afford to buy himself a million tons of bread while existing in a world that is in need of bread, cannot rightfully call himself moral without the assistance of some ideology!

If God is all-powerful; if he is perfectly good, then why does he not prevent evil? Either he is not all-powerful or he is not good. The same logic applies to a rich man when he claims to care for people, which is simply to say, wealth should be used to make the world a better place (not merely better for a few people).

If this proposition is true, then all those who defy it are immoral.

In this context wealth simply means that I have a greater responsibility to help people. How can it be any other way? Who then is to blame for the breakdown of society when the conditions of society are determined by material wealth? Can we really say, those who have nothing? This is like saying a man with great stores of food is not responsible for starvation, even though he withholds food from the people. The logic here is simple; those who have more wealth have more responsibility, and therefore, incur greater blame. It is altogether proper, to ask any man with wealth, what he has done with his wealth? But in most cases, to ask this question is to equally shatter the image which resides on the phony moral surface.

The entire polemic of the Elite is one mighty attempt to shift blame from themselves to those who have nothing.   

-
-